FFFI**'*

POPULAR FICTION SERIES

Series editors: Tony Bennett Professor School of Humanities Graham Martin Professor of English Literature Open University

THE MONSTROUS.FEMININE
Film, feminism, PsychoanalYsis

Griffith University

In

the same series

Narrative and ideology in the British spy thriller

by Michael Denning

Cover Stories:

Lost Narratives: Popular fictions, politics and recent history

by Roger Bromley

Barbara Creed

Popular Fitm and Television Comedy by Steve Neale and Frank Krutnik

popular Fiction: Technology, ideology, production, reading

Edited by Tony Bennett The Historic Romance lE90_1990 by Helen Hughes Reading the Vampire by Ken Gelder Reading by Startight: Postmodern science fiction by Damien Broderick

London and New York

EI

FfFFFs"

CONTENTS

List of Illustrations
Acknowledgements

VI

vll

Firstpublished 1993
11 New .",,":t l'":1""X*0""n EC4p 4EE Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada

2e west

,r,n,PJ"llif1",j%rk, Ny
Reprinted 1994

1ooo1

@ 1993 Barbara Creed Typeset in l0 on point Times by _12 t Iorencetype Ltd, Kewstoke

I Faces of the Monstrous-Feminine: Abjection and the Maternal INTRODUCTION 8 I KRISTEVA, FEMININITY, ABJECTION 1'6 2 HORROR AND THE ARCHAIC MOTHER: ALIEN 3 WOMAN AS POSSESSED MONSTER: ZFIE EXORCIST 31, 43 4 WOMAN AS MONSTROUS WOMB: THE BROOD 59 5 WOMAN AS VAMPIRE: THE HUNGER 73 6 WOMAN AS WITCH: CARRIE
Part
1'

All rights

,, iH:"l,il,::ffj f,tHH_",,
reserved.

Part

II

Medusa's Head: Psychoanalytic Theory and the

Femme Castratrice
87

mechanicat, or other;";;i, ;;; "i ino*r, o, hereafter invented, including pfroto"opyinf *fr""oraing, or in anv information storage. or retriev af syJtem, *rirr""i rr""rr"lrrf ,irn writing from the publishers.

No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any ". form uy .ry

"i"it .Jl,

Preface
7 .LITTLE HANS,RECONSIDERED: OR.THE TALE OF
MOTHER'S TERRIFYING

WIDDLER'

88

British Library Cataloguing in publication Data

Tho Monstrous

Feminine:

,,*:'rTillttT:ychoanalysis.
L

Title II. Series

791.43

Series)

_ (popular Ficrion

8 MEDUSA,S HEAD: T}{E VAGINA DENTATA AND FREUDIAN THEORY 9 THE FEMME CASTRATRICE: I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE,

105

slszERs

122

10 THE CASTRATING MOTHF-R: 11 THE MEDUSA'S

PSYCHO

139
151 167

Library of congress cataroging in pubrication Data applied for

GAZE

ISBN0_415_05258_0 0_415_{5259_9(pbk)

Bibliography Filmography Index

172

l7g

INTRODUCTION

The hp;-r-or.film is populate.d b.f .tg*g]:"3gfUters'.n1+J oJlbl9l seem to have. ivotve.d Jipm-images."rnii-frauntdi.tt-e--4f-gepg'. py,ths-and-"q*-iidic iractices o!gu1..fo1gpearl many.cer-rtu{les^ -qgo. The female monster, or -monstroui-ie*inine, wears many faces: the amoral primeval mother (Aliens, 1986) ; vampire (The Hunger, 1983) ; witch (Carrie, I97 6) ; woman as monstrous womb (The Brood, 1979); woman as bleeding wound (Dressed to Kill,19s0); woman as possessed body (The Exorcist,1973); the castrating mother (Psycho,1960); woman as beautiful but deadly killer (Basic listinct, 1992); aged psychopath (Whatever Happened to Baby iane?,1962); the monstrous girl-boy (A Reflection of Fear, t973); woman as non-human animal (Cat People, 1942); woman as life-in-death (Life1985); woman as the deadly femme castratice (I Spit On Your force, -Grave,1978). Although a. great deal has been written aboul t_hq horror film. verv littl6;i ihat work has aiscgsseO ttre reprqselltalioq of 1v.9m4q-as'monstei. Instead, emphasig (mainly !r-a! been Qn wQman as--yiptim of the ffiD- mo.!sFf:- W.ry-lt-lq- lvo-a-n.armonster been neglec,Ied !n. -fgryinist

Ail ho*un societies hfl-ei. -q9199p1"i-oi'g1."tu -ry-o.4ltl9qs-ferqiniag,.qf wtrai ilid about woman thai is shobking,-te1rify.ing, horrific, abjec!. Freud -link-ed manii f"ut oi *o*an to his infantile belieilhat the mother is -aastfated.

theory a;d h ui$"qi!t-,alt s!gn$pa11- 1-\qo{eti-qal. -analvs-e"r'sf. irorrai film?.After all, t!rQ image is ha1-dly, tlgw.

"the

FpP^ular

'-

*Pfo6abli rio male human being is spared the fright of castration at ihe sigttt of a female genital', Freud wrote in his paper, 'Fetishism' in 1g27 (p. L54). Joseph campbell, in The Masks of God: Primitive Mythoiigy, drew attention to woman as castrator and witch'
there is a motif occurring in certain primitive mythologies, as well as in modern surrealist painting and neurotic dream, which is known to folklore as 'the toothed vagina' - the vagina that castrates. And a counterpart, the other way, is the so-called'phallic mother,' a motif perfectly illustrated in the long fingers and nose of the witch'

,ji'
r i,!i

(Campbell, t976,79)

THE MONSTROUS-FEMININE

lN'l'RoDUC'l'loN

As well as its expression in surrealist art (see illustrations),,the myt.h.of the vagina dentata is extremely prevalent. Despite tocat variaiions, the myth generallv states that *o-"n are terrifying #.;;;; rh", #;;";rh in their vagi-n3s and that the women must be tam;d or the teeth somehow removed or softened - usually by a hero figure _ before int"r"ourr" place. The witch, of course, is a fimiliar female monster; "u;;;l;il;;; she is invariabry represented as an old, ugly crone who is capable of monstrous acts. During European witch trials of recent history she was q"q,rr"J ." ll: rr rr." ;.;i hideous crimes: cannibalism, murder, castration .i-"f; ''advent of natural disasters su"h a, stor. "f,o;;;;;ffi;

headmakesthespectatorstiffwithterror,turnshimtostone.'Thcironyof also mecna

that becoming stiff this was not lost on Freud, who pointed out

li""r"g -rp?.,uror:

stiffening reassurcs ", "r*""".iit;.'i. he is still in possessionbf.a penis' and the it'," of horror - of experience if the him of the fact' (ibid.:ir' O"" *o"deit body of the the in alterations ;i;;i;g it " t orio, ni- - causes similar phrases- tlat used by both ge modern male spectator. And what of other
male and female

the original situation

it offers consolation to

"i"*"t. made me feel sick';'It

societiesarsohave-il;;;;ilil;Ji;fi::":i." j3;J'lJffi;,ytrJ

lpttrases such as: 'Ii scared the shit out of me'; '[t gave me the creeps'? What-is the relationship (even if metaphoric ones) and the between physical .,u,"., fioAify wastes

the blood of helpless, often willing, victims and transforms them into her own kind.

mythologyJoo, was populated with gendered monsters, many ^Classical of which were female. The Sireni o? classical rnylhotogy were desc-ribed as enormous birds with th6 heads of women. Th"y ur"o til"i, ilgt";l ,;G ;; lure sailors close to shore in order to drive the sailors, stripJinto hidden reefs. The Sirens then ate their helpress victims. The Medusa and her two sisters also presented a terrifying rigt t. ihey hao h"g" ;;;;;-their hair consisted of writhing serpents, their ieeth were as rong as boars, tusks and they flew through the air on golden wings. Men unfortrinut" to look upon the Medusa with her evil eye weie immediately "nougr, turned to stone. In classical times, pendants and othei jeweilery depicting ttr" M"d".;,, iiGnieSing appearance were frequently worn to lvuia *ur_ riors painted the fumale- genitats on their shields "ffi;iirp-i.itr,'uno in order a ;"*fy;; enemy. Freud takes up this point in his short essay, .Medusa's head,:
Medusa's head takes the place of a representation of the female or rather if it isorates their hoirifying effects rrom trreir pleasure-giving ones, it may be recaned ttrat iispiayitrg tntg";itat, r,

honific -in"particular, the monstrous-feminine? imon'trous-feminine' as the term 'female monster' I have used the t".The reasons why-.!he tnl;ifit" ;til; ;^a?r*r'-of ,male monster,. diiferent tSoln '1tr-' quiie moristious-feininine ;;;;id"."l"t- u"oi""t" are ::;il;:;; rtu *l; -"".,"r ho*ifies his eu{ienee,,Anew term is needed

.{*it[ulotnpst"repiip-"sqrth'e-rEmidine' [;"#;:ttl";;jr#ffi Jhq phrpw ;:fr" o"d'"a in terms of

;; *rr;l-; ;;#;;h :mS,ii;-",

If

genitals,

familiar in other connections as an apotropaic act.-whuT urorrr", horror in oneself will produce the same iff""i.rpon the enemy against whom one is seeking to defend oneself. we read in Rabelais of how the Devil took flight when the woman showed him her vulva. (p.27a)

.r ir," ,',inr,rour" "."*pi ui. nd is related intimately fo the problem of sexual oinei"""e u"iita;*ii*lii we accept Freud's interpretation that the 'Medusa's tt""J ,rt.ri;;;;; of a representation of the female genitars', we can see that the Medusan tvll.ir mediated by a narrative about the dffirence of femare sexuarity as a diff'erence which is grounded in monstrousness and which invokes castration anxiety in the mare spectator. 'The sight of the Medusa's
femi nine. as constructed-wi th i n/6'y u outiiur"r.,

It is not by accident that Freud linked the sight of the Medusa to the.equaily horrifying sight of the mother's genitars, roi tt

;;;ffi;#'iiliil,

ihe iglportanqe qf.gqnder.in t[9 -cpr1"-phasizes strtiction of he1 monstrositY' it is relevant to consider Before discussing iii" q""ttions raised above' thevariouswaysinwhichtheoristsandcriticshaveapproachedthequeshave adopted tion of woman u. .o"ti"t in pop.,tut nh'-Il, e9,.Ir-9t$, t-lqy as moiistroSity femtle o[. ; the fptlowing-epi.ou"tr"s: simply diicussed repwhen terrifies only part of male lnonstt;tttyi argued th-al woman to her only- in.passing; or resented as man's *"t"r;O 6thq1; ie eo ;;;;;'gteat''femalemonstgrsinthqtradition-of a that Tgq."d .there i or Dracula' One- ,heorist who has contributed monstgi Frlankensiein's of.the horror film is Robin wood; but' &ir;"i ;;;T;i;; "ppieciation in the horror film, he has not although he is interestei'in gende, relations in any detail' To my knowledge discussed the nature oif"tni" monstrosity different faces of the no one has presentJ a sustained analyiis of the female *orrrt"t or'the monstrous-feminine'' GdrardLenneinhisarticle,'Monsterandvictim:womeninthehorror idea of a female monster film', is fairly typicai of those who find the very but deeply sexist' notions of chivalry' offensive to their *,t*t q"ul"t, ,are very few monstrous and disfigured G6rard Lenne argues that there He appears to believe that women in the fantasii", urra so much the bitter'. their 'natural' role in life. 'Is women should u" ,"fr"*"rrted only in terms of mother and lover, it not reasonable tliat woman, who, in life, is both of a sheltering feeling the should be represen*JUy characters that convey monsters but female He allows that there are ;;;;;i' (Lenne, tgii, is) he states instance for then finds reasons *ty tt'"y are not real monsters; the 'secondary'; exists but her role is usually that the female ""*rjir" schizophrenicte*atemonstersofRepulsionandsistersareunderstandable

iaiii"i*i

;'

ii'

he.1 pexp4l!1y,,

THE MONSTROUS-FEMININE because 'schizophrenia is readily assimilated to female behaviour, (ibid., 37). Lenne evades the identification of female monsters such as the half_ human, half-animal female hybrids of Isrand of Lost souls andthe .revolt_ ing' figure in The Reptile by dismissing them as 'problematic,. .woman is seldom to be found.among the great psychopaths'and there is ,not one

INTRODUC'I'ION and death as well than any other genre star, the connection between sex 164)' (ibid', sexuality female to the culture's ulnbiguoo. attitude ^
nn

hie niorc*tis simply the result of a 'prevailing trend for making female versions of the grJui ;yth. of the fantastic' (ibid.). The only 'indisputably active role in the fantastic that is exclusively female' is that of the witch 1iuic., 3g). However, i""n" is more interested in the 'attractiveness of the- witch' than in her monstrousness. After producing a litany of sexist comments, he concludes that the ,great monsters are all male'. In his view, woman exists in the horror film primarily as victim. 'perfect as a tearful victim, what she does best is to faint in the arms of a gorilla, or a lnurnmy, or a werewolf, or a Frankensteinian creature' (ibid., 35). . while it is true that there are fewer crassic female monsters than mare, it does not follow that these creatures are not terrifying or truly monstrous. Lenne does not even mentio" p;",; ttt" ep"-woman of ttre ig+os played by Acquanetta in both Captive Wild Woman and Jungle Woman and by vicky Lane in Jungre captive - the classic female o,oni", with more than one film to her credit. Lenne's definition of what constitutes the monstrous is questionable on a number of counts, particularly his statemeni that the horror of schizophrenia is somehow ameliorated'not orrrv-uecause it is understandable but because it is supposedly a ,female, illness. In his book, Dark Romance, DaiidJ. Hogan examines the sexual aspect of the horror cinema. while he draws attent-ion to those Rtms, within eacn sub-genre, in which the monster is female, he does not examine the nature of female.monstrosity in any depth. wheie he does discuss this issue, his response is ambivalent. on the one hand, he states that horrorfilms with female monsters as centrar characters are'a relatively new pheno-enon, and seem to have deveroped parallel with the growth of the women,s movement in the united States and Europe'. Holiever, he dismisses most of these films as'obvious and childish'(itoga.r, 19g6, rg). on the other hand, Hogan does draw attention to a 'faicinating subgenre, that appeared in the early 1950s, which he calrs the 'cinema of lost women,. This subgenre, in which women choose to rive apart from -.o, irr"-t-uo"s tiles such as: Queen of outer space, The She-ireature and voodoo women. A central feature of these firms is 'their insistence upon the adversary aspect of man-woman relationships',.which Hogan finds .disqui"ting; 1lLiO., Of_ t:, generally dismissive of fihJwith female -orrrt""r..'ie does, il,Lr.i:" acknowledge the contribution of Barbara Steele, known as the lgrgujr: 'High Priestess of Horror', to the genre. He argues that her appeal resides in her ability 'to express a tantariziirg sort of evil, and a sexual ambivalence that is at once enticing and ghastlyi In his view, steere represents, more
4

single female mad scientist' (ibid.;3g).

films ate In Dreqdfu! pliagures James B. Twitchell argues that horror social iformulaic adolescent.,with the provide which rituals' ,i-itu, io tl-" fol teenager the piepate myths ill-"tl:t information. 'Modern horror ot sexualidentitv' (rwitchel!-l?-*,t'.tJ: ;i;;;;;iion ' . . they are tautes transtormatlonl- tne He is primarily interested in the monster as {figure of one hand'. Twitchell i,il;#;';;ti*"1t,-;"tul", psvchspath'- d-n ttt" categories, but on these to belong who nto"it"t. AiuJ" utL"tion to femal"

such as Carrie and The the othdf hand he does noilserioosly examine films, are made from the perspective of a f."lLl.t.rite of Passa9e,'

Exorctst,that rmannish' (i9ig" 257) which psychopath as rf!: iir*irr"s the female ,femininiiy', by definition, excludes all forms of ,;;g;.,, he believes that
assressive, monstrous behaviour'

-'6;il;;;;-*rir"r, wnoie-inalysis of llorror draws. on, Jgcent debates with the ;;*"-ot."r,rut difference attempt to come to !9rms theorists "miin; nature of monstrosity in relation to gendei' [n general' .these she is in" r'r"oalun position that woman horrifies because ;;;i; is presented
i,a;tf';"A.tbp" oi,tt" most substantial
in his uook,
male horror

b;6;;h""-Neale

anxietv,,il":t", u'sl".' t^lT,lhe classic ;i;"'ilil ;;;il *ut" "u'i'ution fill the lack. monster ,."fr"r"n,. castration but only in oid"t to

Genr:e"

analyses of the monster Dra*ing on lauqa Mulv-eJ's thdory

;;;ir;;.*

by soothing castration and thereby enrertain the male spectator tend' in fact, moniters N"ui",:most to ;;r #r.#;";#i-",io.'according ;[,,#ffi;tual'-u1"," "specialg in so far as the objects of their desire are almost exclusively women' (Neale, L980' 61)'

Inthisrespect,itcouldwellbemaintainedthatitiswoman'SSexuato ti,y, ,t u, *hici, renders them desirable - but also threatening which to explore, and which constituies also and ultimately that really

horror cinema exists men, which constitutes the real problem that the

is

monstrous.
a-r.q

(ibid.,61)

is twqway;.pf in{91pr9!jng.1b.;,qt;;'t*} The first ponend. -tf; e ;il; ;"' Gio". tr,e' to;nau'y uei*"in-tt'61'Jmun ullim3tgry wtiictr qf-qistration r;ui. ;ui6 i;"i."il; huriian. The ,e"'.d ;';i;, fascimanls that mqnstq_o.ll-sj. kd a"-i1;""rgt 1be Nealg-3,1s99s ilqr1cer 'nation with and t"u. olf"mate s-exuglity fs- endGiily rgworked within the fllm offers an sig"irvrtg-pia"ii""t of ttt" hqryQ-r film' Thus, the horror function is to atlest to the abundant display of fetishistic "tt*t**rtose .iitr" p",tiare,hal.ordgr founded., as it is, on a miscsnception belief that woman is castrated' ih" "tton"ous Asustainedandimportantdiscussionofthemonstrousfemaleispre. .The construction of the ..castrated sented by Susan turie in her article,

ln Neale's view, there

;;;;;

Hffiii;

THE MONSTROUS-FEMININE

INTRODUCTION

i" ,ri"i;J;h#; woman is physically whole, intact and in po"ssession of ufi;";;;;;;i powers' The notion of the caitrated rb-* ir u prrunturv rrL;[J; ameliorate man's real fear of what woman migr,t ao'io iirl ti r"r*-*"i the term-'phanrasy' rathei

lecluse tr'"v

woman" in psychoanalysis and cinema,. $$.gqting- $ IRRrS_aqh i1 oppo_ sition to Neare's, I,urie challgnges thti-tradiir.rir Fr*iiii;;;.sition by arguing tha-1 mgn fga{. womgn,--.roi because women are castiated but

be-cair.se.w-oman is"ot not "ia"t'i m,utilatpd-tike a

i'i

ii"a.'ru'i"

;;;;;;;;;;'
-r"

-ti

#"

;:""rs woriian

-igrr.-u"

ihaii''fantasy'

quCh as No;feratu y_ra rn"'iian:**-;j;t*'";;,;;; represent 'a surprising (and at ,i-"r tween monster and woman' in ihat ,"orrrunl, "rr*rrii"io.t" 'sim ilar status_withi n patriarchar r"r""r", .i r*r
u,ooles represent a fbiiFur i;a=il;;i#hE?;;_ 1; "t"'_:::fi::tjl:il'^:.n.se. o.r, lqportdnt' implicatiorii for the femire spebiator. .so _.rYLrt]rl: rnere rs.a sense in which the woman's rook at the monster . . . is arso a recoglitlgl of their simirar status as potent threats il-""r""r"ur" -"r" power' (ibia., 90). Williams,s argumenichallenges,n" monster is identified with masculinity and op"n, "rrr.p,i;;;"ffi; the way for u air",rr.io'or woman's 'power-in-difference'. Although lvilliu-r,, irreris ir-irrrportant, because it challenges conventional appioaches to the horro, fl-, i, ,rilt leaves unanswered questions about thl nature of female monstrosiql-yhat exactly is it about woman herself, as_a- being quite separat. t on''trr" ,nur" monster, that produces definitions of femali monstrosity?

h-o1ror films ;lassii frequently

Drawing on Lurie's work, Linda Williams argg-e_.s-,,in her.a.4icle .When the woman loolist, tha! it is woma1,, .po*"r_i",?ir1ffi;iliiOi,."rgi,r" is central to the representation of the monster

!!-e,N94!e-,.,*r-q"- j:"ltimatslyconcernedontywit-h.r[u--ruor"r"riiu'it#a*i woman as victim. Shg argues that man deals with rris anxietv ,t not.castrated by construi-ting her as castrared "i;uHi, *irt i"-,t g'h:.fiF text'-Slg analyses this process in relation to"'riilrr;;;;;ffi;; Alfred Hitchcociit The Birds. she claims that the'proriferation oreffortsi,"l+*r*, woman fg rymbolically castrated, palticularly in the romancg genre of ths fiction film, 'argues vigorously i!.iinst tt " t ypott o;, il;;""r";;;0"*;;;;;r"" ' - ., ... pricri castrated' (ibid., 56).

:j:j:".l.llic.{lv. course when the penis 'disappears' inside woman's (Lurie, 1981-2, 55). Lurie's ^anarysis is important, particularly her discussion of man's fear of woman is castrating other. It is this'aspect of Lurie's argument thatrwil develop in detail iripart rr oimy urruryrir. nut,

emphasize phantasy in the Freudian sense in ,,ihi"rr tn" ,"L:""t is represented as a protagonist engaged in the activity of wish fulfilment. .Fantasy' sometimes has the connotations of whimsy * a notion I wish to avoid.) Lnec-rlca11yr f;e fears that woman could castrat" rri- uolt-psycrricatty and in He imagines the tatter might take prr* a"ri"g

,rrr6ugho;;;;;;J; I

with Apart from williams, nearly all of the articles discussed above deal most is that this for reason main fiIm..lhe woman as victim in tho horroi *ri,"tt adopt Freud's argut4e4t,lhaiwom1 teiriflqd because-she is ca.s' olly pe"rvgs to trated, thatis, atreadlr eoirstituted aqJ.i,.,tt ;'S"t!r a pp;ition which wtifidn of tePres_ellt and reinforce ;;;;f;;"" ;"t.iurihut'a"nnitions Mv.intention is to vi'ctim' a b).. nful.e,is ;;;"t"ltti-"ian tttat *qman,, and to argue that film horror in the wornal cxplore the representation of of horror films' number significant in a represented as monstrous

*o-un

ls

wish to

However,

is am not arguing that simply becauqe the monstrous-femininp

ifeminist; or ,tiU".uGal.'tn" pi"r"""" ".r."u"iia

t

us

u"1ffi9;-iattr"r

tha,n passive {euJe

thal th!|..image is Lt th" moniiious-femiriiiie in'the

t;;";: .'devouring;;;h'

about maie fenrs than a.go.y1temlle ;ilil;.im-- ep6uks.to..usmore this presence does challen g:. t1' Aowever' ffi ;;; f;; nine suliectivi ty. situated in an active. sadistic

,tr" n.'ul" rp".tuto,. i. almost always "i"* ", plritlA" and the fem;l" ,p""tuiot in a passive, nasochistic o,-+*--*l analysis as.qects li{udian [i irri- ng"tb aiso ,tecel.itut"s a reiea{inq. of kev 1f castration and qomplex oedlpus the of il:i;, p"ur1i".tr4ty tris theory

it

crlsls.

=ttpi* I

discussion of at least five faces of the of the abject and monstrous-feminine in relation to Julia Kristeva's theory were originally modifications' some the maternal. (Chapters l and2,with oHorror an monstrous-feminine: the and published as a jouinal article: when that w-ill ggue 45-:!9,:).1 (1986): i-uginuty abjeciion', Screen 21'1 relation to-h9r woman is representqd as monstrous it is almost always in presents

a detailed

are: the archaic ;rirrlr;-tl;J-iioi.or.tive functions. These faces and the possessed vampire; the witch; ilffili"h" .on.iilut *o-b; the as monstrous woman of p"" representation II I will discuss the ;;;;. i, argued that

in horror. She states that

in relation to Freud's theory of

.ril".ffij ih; ""tr.rir;;, i"rl'JJi.,r,-","0 $'. ffi

Ili:

man]s, fear of cas;";;; terrifies because she appears to be castrated, phantasy monstrous another construct t i* ,l ;;;il;'h^;t" ',,[o,,-un,"y "i"*.lJ is linked more monstrousness yqmanls ;l;;;i ^ "uurutor.*Hg-{g tt'un to the area or reproduction' rhe takes at least rhree forms: woman as the as h;;'.ir,il;;" ""rir",or vagina-denmta' ;ffiit-ir^^, castratrice,.the castrating mother and the in.fact.he seems castrator; as Fid;; iiA no, uuutvre minls fears of w.oman

castration'--Wb-e-r-eas

lreud

ffi;;ffi;',iil;;;;-,;;i?"ii'"

;;;;;";;ot".seo

itris image of woman in his writings about sexual differwill, ;;;;;;d il;i, .u,"'nirto-ri".: Of necessity, then, thisofinvestigation main the of some a critique entail popular fictions, irrr"'+iifr "nuiyri.'or tenets of Freudian theory and contemporary film theory'

FFFE"T'

KRISTEVA, FEMININI'I'Y, AtsJEC ION

1,

KRISTEVA, FEMININITY, ABJECTION

and historleal notlong modern horror text are grounded in ancient religious religioun 'abomlna' following the to oi-uUi..tion - particulaily in relation decay and alteration, corporeal perversion; tions,: sexual immorality and the fcminlne wastes; bodily corpse; the human sacrifice; murdir;

We may call it while releasing

""-Pgp-ely'41

a_P..g-rder;

rrbro, ri

what threatens it

danger'

abjection is above allambiguity. Because, noi *ai"urry rro,n on the contrary, abjection "utTrirtn=e'Jiruy"""t u"r.no*r"og"#to be in

o*r

J"uttt; uoovunaincest.Theseformsofabjectionarealsocentraltotheconstruc. the monstrous in the modern horror film' tionof -,the place where meaning collapses" the place of the abject is it ptu"" excluded' .I' " am not. The abject thrlatens life; it must be 'radically where away propelled subject' living of the iffi;"*; i-Jt82,2) from"the place border imaginary an of side irom the body and deposited on the other the *hi"h ,"puratls the ,"lf fro* that which threatens the self' Although suUiectmustexcludetheabject,theabjectmust'nevertheless'betolerated the
for that which threatens to iestroy life also helps to define
life-.

Further,

A full examination of this thlory is outJde fh" ,.op" of this project; I propose to draw mainly on Kristeva's discussion of the construction of abjection in the human subject in relation io her notion of iuj'i#.uoro"r, (b) the mother-child relatironship feminine body. At crucial points, I shall arso refer to her writingr "rJi.)-;he on it abject in relation to religious discourses' This area cannot be ign"ored, " for what becomes apparent in reading her work is that definitionJof thsmonstrous as constructed in the
8

works within human societies, as a means of separating out the human from the non-human-and the fuliy constituted subject tJ* ,ir" partialry formed subject. Ritual becomes u bv which societies both renew their -"un. initial contact with the abject element and then exclude that element. Through rituar, the demarcation lines between the human and non-human are drawn up anew and.presumabrv made urLth;,1;;;il## (one of Kristeva's aims iir ror"u iTiorrori"topr"r"r;";;;ri,i"g process. or-any of the ideas and beliefs put forward by ,rr. c"ri"J" ;"t-dffi;;;, ,j""in"u'y those associated with thi nature of femininiiy, abjection and the sacred. For an introduction to thephilSsog-trr writings of ga the college see The e- --^ ''1 Corege of Sociology (1937-39) edited by Denis Holiier.)

rules,, that which'disturbs identity, system, ord'er, (Kristeva,.r%;:';;.';"general terms, Kristeva is attempting to exprore the different *uy. irir"ii"h abjec_ tion

Julia Kristeva , powers of Horror powers a's of Horror provides us with a preliminary hypothesis for an analysis of the representation of woman as monstrous in the horror film' Although her study is concerned with psychoanalysis and literature, it nevertheless suggests a wa{ of situating the monstrous-feminine in the horror film in relation to ihe maternar"figure and what Kristeva terms 'abjection', that which does not 'respect.borders, positions, Julia Kristev

activityofexclusion,isnecessarytoguaranteethatthesubjecttakeup his/hei proper place in relation to the symbolic' one of which relates to it uUi"., can be experienced in various ways -has been inscribed in a " bodily funct'ions, the other of which biologicai that food (religi,ous) economy. For instance, Kristeva claims

G#ii;

loathingis.perhapsthemostelementaryandarchaicformofabjection' 'be(ibid.).iooi, hor""u"r, only becomes. abject if it signifies a border describes 75). Kristeva tween two distinct entities tr territories' (ibid.'

how,forher,theskinonthetopofmilk,whichisofferedtoherbyher world

separatingher father and mother, is a.sign of iheir desire" a sign since the food is not 'But want. not does she which from their world, a sign spit for..me,liwho am only in their desire, I expel myself, I

an,.other,, myselfout,Iabjectmyselfwithinthesamemotionthroughwhich..I',claim it is relevant to ,.'"ri"urtt myself ' 1iuia., 3). In relation to the horror film, a major source of note that food loathing i. f'"q""ntly represented as (Btood Feast' Motel Hell' abjection, particularly ine eam! of human flesh Grinders)' Corpse The Biood Dr'nLr, rne nitts Have Eyes, protects,itself from The ultimate in abjection is the corpse' The body these things ejecting by pus and urine bodily wastes srrch as shit, blood, fromthebodyjustasitexpelsfoodthat,forwhateverreason'thesubject at the same time finds loathsome. the body ejects these substances' fall, so that it they where place the extricating itself from thern ani from might continue to live:

Suchwastesdropsothatlmightlive,until'fromlosstoloss'nothing the limit - cadere' remains in me and my entirJ body falls beyond border' the place the of side other the cadaver. If dung signifies co{pse' the most where I am not aniwhich permits me to be, the
upon everything. sickening of wastes, is a border that has encroached expelled' It is no longer I who expel' 'I'is

(ibid.' 3-4)

THE MONSTROUS-FEMININE the corpse is arso utterry abject. It signifies one :onteIt, the most basic forms of pollutiori- ,rr" uoov withoui a soul.-As a form waste it represents

within

a biblicar

KRISTEVA, FEMININITY' ABJECTION

txl".,'"il:,3 ::l,r;*:*"1"t:",, : ffi i'fi subjectcaneverr"il'=l,_ii'i.;#jii.iipi:'^iff

trre rivin g

Abjection also occurs where"the things are those that highlighl;h; ttlg*^, is a hypocrite, a liar. Abject *;il;, of the law; and that exist on the

the opposite or ti"".pirituar, the religious relation to the horror Rtm, it ir rJ"""r, to note that sJveral symboric. rn popular horrific fis]1"r of the most are 'bodies witt out souls, (the uu-pir";, the ,riving corpse' (the zombie).,. corpse-ea* fii'" gt."il what is arso interesting i. trrui'rr"rr'in"i"n, or android. ""i'irr;;.."# figures of abjection as the vampire, the ghour, irre zomuie a"J ,i" *ir"t iJI" i?n", that she used corpses for *u. her tit., ot'J'ugic) continue "n.", to provide the most competing.images some of .il;;;;t in the modern cinema. werecreatures' whose bodies signify ;;l;p* of the boundaries between human and animal, atso uet8ngioi#"ur"go.y.

of of

monstrous in the horror film; that which crosses or threatens to crOss th6 ,border' is abject. Although the specific nature of the border changes from film to film, ihe function of the monstrous remains the same - to bring about an encounter between the symbolic order and that which threateng its stability. In some horror films the monstrous is produced at the bordef between h.rmun and inhuman, man and beast (Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde,
Creature

n;

from the Black Lagoon, King Kong); in others the border is between ihe normal and the supefnatural, good and evil (Carrie, The

t rrom

th

at

cotipses. The subject, ,ir."g1 a deire toi-,n"un'ing. is also iru"E or"-J"riirr1*sness - ttrus, ttre constantry beset bv abjecti,on subject is *rri"rr--rui"rates,desire but repelred for fear ot-r"ir-u.rnir,ri"ii"".'a which must be point is that abjection is "ruciar emph asize s the attraction, ;TiH,1l?::,:1: .;1fi as

the place of abjection, the prace constructed inlthrough,rangrage, spoken by rhe abjecl,.,tr.

wil;;'r"*]rq

li:,-"i,,,:T.|",1;

Exorcist, The Omen, Rosemary's Baby); or the monstrous is produced at the border which separates those who take up their proper gender roles from those who do not (Psycho, Dressed to Kill, A Reflection of Fear); ot the border is between normal and abnormal sexual desire (The Hunger, Cat People). Most horror films also construct a border between what Kristeva reiers to as 'the clean and proper body' and the abject body, or the body which has lost its form and integrity. The fully symbolic body must bear no indication of its debt to nature. In Kristeva's view the image of woman's body, because of its maternal functions, acknowledges its 'debt to nature' and consequently is more likely to signify the abject (ibid., 102). The notion of the material female body is central to the construction of the border in the horror film. I will explore this crucial area fully in the following chapters.

*jl'[*jlh];a

t.'...ii-"dtff ;ij,,1JT|; #ftrJ,in a riterar'*'"il"*ing the ;r*t';l;,::T'fl l{;/;"'ffi ,iJ#;,Tilfi :.i,',:?:ffi J:il'i;J# mreg *itr' p"*J'lity, pr"".u,"
i,,
safety of ,rr" re a te d to po'
r

nm 'maoe me i'c"k' o,.'r"aredfo1de1, when we say the "*' shit our or me,, "'*ork aul""tion:-oi-rit""itlt-ttltding . that specifi c h.-- diu" of

trt" array of bodily was::s "o.prr:;ili" "ro n'"iJlr"i, i.i,r'*". ,, *"r, "" putrefying flesh. In terms _*.ur.olllo_it, saliva, sweat, tears and of f*t"uut-rr.llT:l the

The horror firm would appear to be, in at reast three ways, an'lustration the work of abje*ion. of h'irrt, ,rt" r,Lr.", fi'r- ubounJ. i;';# tron' foremost of which rr of abjec_

ABJECTION AND THE HORROR FILM

trt":Ji:ff*r; iH"

il;J.]l'i?;ffiiilt?f,been
rp""iulr's
g
o u., e

seat). tn

u ti n

cts

; iltd

ili:ijil1l,Jt;,';TT,fi ';:X.',T:,1;;"*',"ru,i*,i,ipliin"Io,*,-"
second' the concept

;; rl ;i; ;l,l JiiJ,;;IlJ :l"HH:,jff:?

tr

ir,"uu?11.,^".1-"o

the abject (from the

taken

"r "

u"ri"r irt""nrrut to the construction of the

l0

Intereitingly, various sub-genres of the horror film seem to correspond to religious categories of abjection. For instance, cannibalism, a religious abomiiation, is ientral to the 'meat' movie (Night of the Living Dead, The Hills Have Eyes); the corpse as abomination becomes the abject of ghoul and zombie movies (The Evit Dead; Zombie Flesheaters); blood is central to the vampire film (The Hunger) as well as the horror film in general (Bloodsucking Freaksi); the corpse is constructed as the abject of virtually ull hortot films; and bodily disfigurement as a religious abomination is also central to the slasher movie, particularly those in which woman is slashed, the mark a sign of her'difference', her impurity (Dressed to Kill, Psycho). The third way in which the horror film illustrates the work of abjection is in the constrrr"iiott of the maternal figure as abject. Kristeva argues that all individuals experience abjection at the time of their earliest attempts to break away from the mother. She sees the mother-child relation as one marked by conflict: the child struggles to break free but the mother is reluctant io release it. Because of the 'instability of the symbolic function' in relation to this most crucial area - 'the prohibition placed on the maternal body (as a defense against autoeroticism and incest taboo)', Kristeva urgol, that the maternal body becomes a site of conflicting ,Heie, drives hold sway and constitute a strange space that I shall desires. name, after Plato (Timaeus,48-53), achora, a receptacle'(ibid., 14). The position of the ctritA is rendered even more unstable because, while the mother retains a close hold over the child, it can serve to authenticate her
t1

.
existence

THEMONSTROUS-FEMININE KRISTEVA, FEMININITY, ABJECTION

rn the ch'd's attempts,to break away, the mother becomes an .abject,; thus' in this context, where the chiii struggles to become a separate subject' abjection becomes 'o pr"iiniirton of narcissrsz, (ibid.). once again we can see abjection * *ott l" the horror text where the child struggles to break away from the mother, representative of the archaic maternal figure, in a context in which_ the iather i, i*uriuury absent (Psycho, Carrie, The Birds). r" tttlr"'hr-s the maternar figure is con_ structed as the monstrous-feminine. By t ir.r"gi.^r"ii"o"rri,'n", hord on her child, rn" O."u:l1:-11t:T ,ururf,ip'io proper place in relarion to the symbolic. partly consumed by the "o"i* to remain locked in a brissfur relationship with the una p*trv terrified of separation, 10the1 the ch'd finds it easy to succumb to the com'forii'ng pt"urure of the dyadic relation_ ship' Kristeva argues that a whole of tackling this danger: "i"" "ii"rigion has urru-"J ii" function
precisery where we encounter the rituals of defilement and ;-th" feeling of abjection and all converging on the maternar, attempt to symbolize the other threat to the subject: that of being swamp"iiylrt" duar rerationship, thereby risking the loss not of. i purt

an existence which needs validation because of her problematic relation to the symbolic realm.

phallic body; it is distinguished from paternal laws within which, with the shape' take will man of destiny the language, of phase anO acquisition to the relation in defilement of discussiorioirituals [ibid., 72).; her authmaternal between distinction a draws Kristeva indian caste system, the of the 'mapping of period the that argues She law. ority and paternal of exercise the by is characterized (ibid.) body' proper selfis clean and .authority without goilt" a time when there is a 'fusion between mother different natrrre, (ibid., Z). However, the symbolic ushers in a 'totally
and shame, universe of socially signifying performances where embarrassment,

Ptr derivatives, their which, based

i:

mother.

f."rt#i."f but of the totality of his living being' rhe ,rt3.* r""ious rituals is to ward off the subject's fear of Iils -r1n1ion't very own identity sinking
irretrievably into the

to castration. Kristeva refers to the processes of toilet training as a 'primar mapping oi'ri" uoav,which she cari .semiotic,. She distinguishes between maternal 'authority, and .paternar raws,: ,Maternal authority is the trustee of that -#i;; or trr" ,"ir,, .t";;;; proper
12

morher's rore in sphincterai;d";;;.'"H"re, Kristeva argues rhat the subject's first contact wittr .autnoJry;-i, ?rrr, the maternal auihority when the child learns, through interactioi *itrt ii" mother, about its-;ody: the shape of the body, the clean ano trre uncrean, the proper and improper areas of the body' It is the concept oi trt" *ut"rnal authority, that, in my analysis of the monstrous-feminine in rtoiror, I will expand and extend into the symbolic in reration

themother.ih;;;j;;#:lh.T,'LTti..ff ;,::il:ji:Hf ,:*fj:'."jXfi ; of excrementar objects with the r"*";i;;;re is brought about because of the

(ibid., 64) How' then' are prohibitiols against contact with the mother enacted and enforced? In answering this quEstion,-rriiluu finks the urriu"rruipractices of rituals of defilement to the n,otrr"r. srr" argues that within the practices of all rituals of defilem."r, potturirrt'.'j";r ru' rrr,o'-i*o'Jut"gori"r, identiry" the outside ; und ile,,,t,,.ur, ffiffiTil:i;;;11"jn,,n*atens

guilt, desire etc. com-e inio piay - the order of the phallus'. In the Indian hut*oniously side by side because of the context, these two worlds "iiri practice of working of defilement rites. Here Kristeva is referring to the world public iefecation in India. Kristeva argues that this split between the (a father the of world the and shame) without (a universe of tfr" mother psychosis; in universe of shame), would in other social contexts produce .perfect socialization': 'This may be because the-setting up India it finds a virgule' of the rite of defilement takes on the function of the hyphen, the against lightly brush to prohibition and of allowing the two universes fitth eachotherwithoutnecessarilybeingidentifiedassuch,asobjectandas law'(ibid.). to Viitually all horror texts represent the monstrous-feminine in relation self's clean Kristeva's notion of maternaf authority and the mapping of the to our pus, shit,-etc--are,central vomit, blood, of and proper body. Images split a They'signify horrific. the of notions culturaliy/sociaily conitructed on father. the of law the and authority maternal the between two orders:

f;

theonehand,theseimagesofbodilywastesthreatenasubjectthatis proper'. already constituted, in re'iation to the symbolic, as 'whole and and the text in the protago:rist ihe both subject the Consequently, they fill -disgust and loathing. On the-other hand they spectaior in ihe cinema - with between mother and nature' a 'fusion whentime aiso point back to a

were not seen existed; when bodily wastes, while set apart from the body' horror film the in presence Their shame' and as objects of embarrasr-"rri it is within may invoke a response of disgust from the audience situated as of bodily representation the level archaic niore a at the social symbolic but sometimes filth on taboo the in breaking pleasure wastes may invoke to tha! described u, u pl"arore in perversity - Jnd a pleasure-in returning time when the mother--child relationship was marked by an untrammelled pleasure in'playing'with the body and its wastes' it with The modern horror film often'pluyt'with its audience, saturating

Scenesofbloodandgore,deliueratelypointingtothefragilityofthe

never ceases to symbolic order in the Jomain of the body where the body the world of the signal the repressed world of the mother. ln The Exorcist of the preworld the and priest-as-father, the ,y-rnboli., represented by devil' clashed symbolic, represented Uy a p.rb"s"ent girl aligned with the

t3

l'HE MONSTROUS.FEMININE
head on in scenes where'the foulness of woman was signified by her putrid, filthy body covered in blood, urine, excrement and bile. Significantly, the possessed girl is also about to menstruate in one ,""n", f,r,ooo from her wounded genitals mingres with menstrual blood to p.ouio" key images of horror. (See chapter 3 for -"*ot,n" nm,, a detailed discussion of rhe Exorcist') rn carrie, the film's most monstrous act occurs when the couple are drenched pig's blood, which symborizes menstrual blood in the terms -in set up by the film: women are referrid to in the film as .ot*r;, *o-"n .bleed like pigs', and the pig's blood runs down Carrie,s b;; a?oment or intense pleasure, just as her own menstrual blood ran ao*n"; rro i"gs during a-similar pleasurable moment when she enjoyed t uoof il;;" shower. Here, women,s blood and pig's blood flow together, ", signifying horror, shame and humiliation- In tnii nm, however, tlr" -oir,"i rplut, for the symbolic, identifying with an order which has defined *oo."ni, sexuality as the source of all evil and menstruation as the sign of sin. (See chapter 5 for further elaboration). Kristeva's semiotic- posits a pre-verbal dimension of language which relates to sounds and ione of the voice and to direct of the drives and physical contact with the maternal "*pi"".rtn figure: ,it is dependent upon meaning, but in a way that is not that of tinguisticsigns nor of the symboric order they found' (ibid., 72). with the su6ject,s ry i"io it"lymboric, which separates the child from the mother, the "i maternar ng.rre and the authority she, signifies are repressed. Kristeva then argues irrui it i, tt" function of defirement.rites, parti"utariflhose relatiG;;;ruar -U"i*"en and excremental objects/substances, to point to the ,bouridury, tfr" maternal semiotic authority and the paternal symbolic law. Kristeva argues that, historicalry, it has been the function of rerigion to pllry the abject, but with the disintegration of these ,historical forms, of religion, the work of purification now"rests solely with ,that ciiharsi" po, excellence calred art'.(ibid., 17). This, I would argue, is arso the central ideological project of the popuiu, ho'or fitm - pulrrnl,i., through a 'descent into the ioundations "iiie abject of the symbolic construct,. The horror film attempts to bring about a confrontation with trre afect (trre co{pse' bodily wastes, the monstrous-feminine) i".ro", ir"ii} t"qect trre abject and redraw the boundaries betweenih" hu-un and non-human. As a form of modern defilement rite, the horror fitm attemfis to-r"frrut" o.rt the symbolic order from all that threatens its stability, particurarly the mother and all that her universe signifies. In this ,"nr",'rfiiG horror involves a representation of, utro u ie"on"itiation with, tire iraternur uooy. Kristeva's theory of abjection provides us with an impo.tani trrlo."ti"at framework anarysing, in the horror fil*, th" representation of the ^for. monstrous-feminine, in relation to woman's reproductive and mothering functions' However, abjection uy its very nature is ambiguous; it both repels and attracts' Separating out the n'oth", and her universe from the I4

KR

lsl'E,VA, lrliM

IN tN

ITY' All't EC']'l'l ()N

symbolic order is not an easy task

perhaps it is, finally, not even poscible,

Furthermore,whenweUegintoexaminecloselythenature.ofthemon' role to play in relation to strous mother we discoverihe also has a crucial
mother.

issues discussed and the child,s passage into the symbolic order the castrating and dentata "urirution in part II in relation to ttre imiges of the vagina

15